Microbiologist Carl Woese is well known as an iconoclast. At 79 years of age, Woese is still shaking things up. Most recently, he stated in an interview with Wired that...

"My feeling is that evolution shouldn't be taught at the lower grades. You don't teach quantum mechanics in the grade schools. One has to be quite educated to work with these concepts; what they pass on as evolution in high schools is nothing but repetitious tripe that teachers don't understand."

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.scientificblogging.com.

<quoted text> You need to seriously think about what you are saying. Jesus was the greatest human being who ever lived, and His life and teachings have formed the foundation of morality of every civilized nation for centuries. For you to sit there and arrogantly hurl blasphemous insults only reveals your shallowness.

While that may be, he did not blaspheme Jesus. He, quite rightly, called you a liar for Jesus. That is not the same thing as insulting or blaspheming Jesus.

Of course you are also assuming that there was a historical Jesus who actually existed. There are no contemporary historical records to support this, the first writings not occurring until six decades after his alleged death. Which is what would be expected if a bunch of guys got together and invented a new religion, just as you claim happened with every other religion.

<quoted text>I assume that DNA was created because of scientific logic. Every other complexity that I observe requires intelligent design.

False.

And I gave you examples, along with valid methods of measuring complexity.

HTS wrote:

A computer code cannot come into existence without a programmer.You say DNA is LIKE a code in some ways but not in others. You state this only because of your predetermined commitment to materialism. A seed is planted. A complex plant results. What scientific evidence do you have that DNA is not a bona fide code? What logical basis do you have for such a claim? Do you have an explanation as to how complexity can arise from raw materials without being directed by a code?

Analogies replacing direct evidence are still nothing more than EPIC FAIL.

HTS wrote:

Do you think chemistry itself has the power to create life?

Yup. Especially it is the ONLY thing that is observed.

Of course that doesn't necessarily rule out IDC. It's just that, unfortunately for you, you only have an analogy to offer us instead of evidence.

<quoted text> No, my logical scientific deduction leads me to that belief. What observational science can you point to to suggest that DNA can form without intelligence?

Trees.

You have no logical scientific deduction. Logic and science are two different things. Logic is more akin to math rather than science. Assuming of course one isn't using "logic" in a philosophical manner. Science on the other hand deals with empiricism.

No, Don, no more dishonest than my quoting you saying life begets life and that God diddit with with Jewish magic....You jest...I know...but the truth of your statements is not invalidated by your utter confusion about whether God exists

Actually I don't jest at all. Invisible Jewmagic IS your position. And you are unable to demonstrate your claim in regards to my alleged confusion over the existence of (a) God.

If you were to demonstrate that such an entity exists, you would be the only one on the planet able to do so.

As it happens, you ain't.(shrug)

Russell wrote:

Secondly, there is no point providing SubDud with any referencesHe only reads Stuttering Pigeons, with the occasional foray into Panda's bumBut for you, a zany evolutionary geneticist with out there ideas:http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro2009.A...A pdf, no less----------"One criterion propounded to distinguish informational DNA is whether it is transcribed into RNA. Employing this criterion, the evidence for functionality ----OF ALL---of all regions of the genome has recently been extended by a detailed investigation of 1% of the human genome.22This Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences study has indicated that---VIRTUALLY ALL---- virtually all DNA in the genome, most of which does not encode protein, is transcribed from one or both strands.So the central dogma-based notion that the genome can be functionally discriminated into transcribed (informational, coding) and nontranscribed (junk) regions appears to be invalid. There are other reasons for discounting the notion that only protein-coding DNA contains biologically meaningful information."----------ENCODE Project Consortium. 2007. Identi&#64257;cation and analysis of functional elements in 1% of the human genome by the ENCODE pilot project. Nature 447: 799816.And seeHarrow J, et alGENCODE: the reference human genome annotation for The ENCODE Project. Genome Res. 2012 Sep;22(9):1760-74. doi: 10.1101/gr.135350.111. PubMed PMID: 22955987; PubMedCentral PMCID: PMC3431492.

Referencing big technical science words do not support your position. Especially when they disagree with you. But that's okay, you already admitted multiple times over you have no interest in science, only apologetics.

<quoted text>Abstract of takedown: http://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2...The full paper is a free download. I like this quote from it:The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they can assign a function to every nucleotide in the human genome. Whatever your proposed functions are, ask yourself this question: Why does an onion need a genome that is about five times larger than ours?T. Ryan Gregory (personal communication)

Which reminds me, Russ claims that any evolution that takes place is within the limits of the size of the genome that allows it, because all the potential for variation is already there.

Meaning, according to him, an amoeba (with its much greater size genome) is capable of evolving into something like a human because all the genetic variation is already there.

<quoted text>That's not what he said.The fossil record is full of transitional fossils because they demonstrate transition, as predicted by Darwin himself. Successfully.Fossils are not evolving because they are dead.So there are really only three possibilities here:1 - You are deliberately misrepresenting what he said.2 - You don't understand the subject which you are attempting to critique which leads you to make erroneous arguments which don't even make sense.3 - You don't have a full grasp of English itself, much less science in general.Couple any one of these with your baseless religious opinions, you're basically screwed.(shrug)

You can say they demonstrate transition, but they don't. I'm asking for science. This fact is plainly acknowledged by prominent paleontologists. Your opinions mean nothing.

<quoted text> You need to seriously think about what you are saying. Jesus was the greatest human being who ever lived, and His life and teachings have formed the foundation of morality of every civilized nation for centuries. For you to sit there and arrogantly hurl blasphemous insults only reveals your shallowness.

<quoted text>Collins said that DNA demonstrates evolution. ToE cannot be attacked without bringing up religion. I thought you guys were interested in science..Okay, so I didn't really think you were interested in science.

So the Dude still rules!

Kinda depressing to see this thread still full of gibbering religiots...but how could it have been otherwise.

<quoted text>No, since we can show that DNA forms naturally in a cell it is not really evidence of intelligent design. Besides, due to the action of creation and intelligent design "scientist" there is no evidence for intelligent design.

<quoted text>The evidence that abiogenesis MAY have been the result of natural chemical processes includes naturally occurring biological compounds observed in the lab due to chemistry, and the first organisms in the fossil record were bacterial/microbial in nature.

Abiogenesis MAY have been caused by a God or Gods, or perhaps even aliens. So far there is no evidence at all. I don't need to "disbelieve" or "reject" what you cannot provide.Of course none of this is relevant to the validity of evolution.

Really, name one example from modern science. What is more seen in modern science is wrong ideas being wiped out ---QUICKLY--- quickly. The closer to the present we get the quicker bad ideas are wiped out. Sound science that is supported with a lot of data only gets refined, not collapsed.Your examples are based on unsound thinking and lack of awareness of the progress science has made.

<quoted text>Now, lets look at evolution. The observation that evolution occurs was made nearly 2,500 years ago. The Theory of Evolution has been with us in some form for over 150 years. The modern ToE is supported by multiple lines of evidence from a plethora of different fields of science. It has more material evidence than any other theory in the history of science. It is an apex scientific theory that is based on enough scientific papers to fill an entire library (not to mention books).

<quoted text>It has more material evidence than any other theory in the history of science. It is an apex scientific theory that is based on enough scientific papers to fill an entire library (not to mention books).

Evolutionary propaganda has committed a full blown assault on the scientific community

It has contributed NOTHING worthwhile to science or to the world

Belief in it has stymied good science

Like a parasite it exists and thrives because of real science

Its blind assertions, lies and nonsense never end

It claims EVERYTHING to be its own regardless of producing nothing of value itself

----------Change is evolution

No change is evolution

Fast change is evolution

Slow change is evolution

Convergent evolution is evolution

Divergent evolution is evolution

Homology is evolution

Analogy is evolution

Homoplasy is evolution----------

Here are a few of my own:

Grossly erroneous predictions is evolution

Absent evidence is evolution

Non-homologous genes are evolution

Molecular evidence that contradicts homology is evolution

There is an EVER changing definition of evolution

Initially it was all about the tree of life simple organisms becoming more complex as they ascend this imaginary tree

Then when the simple cell was found to be horrendously complex...evo-god quickly kidnapped this unavailable child into its repertoire of just-so story telling

When molecular biology revealed DNA and its dazzling perturbations

....Evo-god comes along and says, oh yes, that one is mine too

When mutations were shown to be utterly inadequate to account for evolution over millions of years...the story changed again....

Doesnt matter at all that evo-god, shabby, cloaked in pseudoscience, changes its mind constantly

Whenever new contrary evidence arises....evo-god is given a nice brush down by its aficionados, bolstered up with utter nonsense and paraded triumphantly as having always been right, or being completely scientific  therefore unavailable for any scrutiny other than glowing adoration

You may kiss evo-gods cheeks....just be sure they are the cheeks you want to kiss.....ever capricious....evo-god cares not one whit about you

<quoted text>I don't believe he can refute gravity with his religious notions.

My religious notions, as you refer to my belief in Gods unwavering word,

...do not change due to the ramblings of men, and are based in an unchanging, plain reading of the Word

You, made all those claims about being Christian, believing in the one true God, the God of Israel, etc, but you have fallen in a heap when tested

--Church of God is a cult

--The trinity is real

--Your have modified Gods word to suit your mistaken beliefs

You cant even talk about this

...I hope from abject shame

And then you have the audacity to say this:

Dogen wrote:

<quoted text>What is most disturbing is that none of them are willing to look at science objectively even as a mental exercise.

When have philosophical and religious arguments EVER trumped science? The only hope they have is to walk fearless into the valley of the shadow of death, but not one of them has the faith, nor the guts.

You find Gods word inconvenient and embarrassing

Hence you have altered it to agree with your indefensible beliefs

Dr Duane Gish pointed out, there may be theistic evolutionists, but theistic evolution itself is an oxymoron, just like an anhydrous reaction using water.

A good illustration is Woodmorappes parable The horse and the tractor: Why God and evolution dont mix.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.